True and that's why we have a welfare system, free or inexpensive health care and an essentially free state education system
Not everyone can have a high paying job unfortunately
do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article
- Thread starter bob shovel
- Start date
True and that's why we have a welfare system, free or inexpensive health care and an essentially free state education system
Not everyone can have a high paying job unfortunately
I don't deny climate change - it has been happening for billions of years.
I just deny that we humans cause any of it.
It's laughable.
On what grounds do you deny it?
Plain old number of days on the planet, observing everyone and everything for 50 years..
Listening to both sides of the arguments - the nay-sayers, the fanatical supporter disciples...watching the weather and so on.
From my observation - I am yet to see any discernible change to the climate or weather in Victoria at all in 50 years....no pattern; no trend; no warming; no sudden and more violent storms or wind or heat or cold.
"OH; but that's just Victoria; not the rest of the world!" I hear you fanatics wail. Give it a frackin' break.
So, Vic doesn't change; but lo-and-behold; the rest of the word is. Poor old Vic is in a vacuum, and birds are dropping out of the sky up in the Kimberleys or wherever...FFS.
One of our regular posters - TopCropper - a farmer - produced rain charts for his area when all the hoo-ha was going on about running out of water, or too much rain - that stupid Tim Flannery was screaming about the sky falling and all this - there was not one single hint of a pattern or trend over the entire charted levels of rain falls on TC's charts - a long number of years.
But amazingly, Tim can come along and announce after 5 mins on the ground that we are all doomed. Frack off.
The fanatics told us we would be out of water by now; we aren't. The dams are pretty full.
The fanatics told us the water levels might rise a metre by the end of the century - might.
Based on what? Surely not a trend in weather, or rain fall, or temp rises. Oh yes; the Global Warming that is also Climate Change whenever the argument requires a shift to dispel the non-believers who argue back..
No; a computer model; a prediction.
And these predictions are based on human activity causing it all, apparently.
Get serious; we reckon we humans can affect the weather, and one measly earthquake can wipeout 300,000 people world wide, and the Japan Tsunami another one.
I mean; come on you guys; don't get sucked into the hysteria.
Step back and question a bit harder; the media are rampant and everyone believes it all.
Get up into the country and seek out some 80 year old man on the land - seek out dozens of them - and see what they have to say about it all.
I can hear them laughing from here already.
Hell; some whack job study grant young dude was ranting on the ABC radio news a few days ago about how the Climate Change was causing tons of birds to drop out of the sky due to the heat up in the North East areas of Aus.
So; what the frack is it? - Climate Change; or Global Warming? He can't even get his phrases right.
Just illustrates how full of shidd this whole debate is; they change the terms and conditions to suit the argument...worse than the Bible freaks when you point out the holes in the novel's stories.
But it gets better; after that statement, he proceeds to divulge that "it hasn't been proven yet".
Are you frackin' kidding me? I've been watching birds drop out of the sky right here in dismal Melb over the years from time to time during an unseasonal heat wave. Happens every summer up in Deni where I lived for several years. It's a laugh.
He then switched over to the rising oceans and announced they may - they frackin may - rise in the next 100 years. OMFG.
His statements are no more based on hard truth than mine...predictions based on birds dying in the heat, and computer prediction model.
And all caused by - us.
Can we just stop this shidd?
This bloke is actually on national radio getting a hearing, and the reporter was listening with rapt intensity and soaking it up, nodding the head; going "Yeah, yeah; far out!".
Last edited:
Heh heh - totally agree.
Same with CO2 concentrations. It has actually been shown that they're higher than they have been for the past 800,000 years! And no, that's not a typo.
Current atmospheric CO2 concentrations have now gone to 400ppm.
I think the single most reason why people don't believe in climate change is in the title of Al Gore's movie: Because it's an inconvenient truth. It would be much nicer if it wasn't true, so I won't believe in it.
This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Yes - it's unfortunate the Greens can't play the media game well. Price controls are obviously a dumb idea and I'm sure the rest of the party would squash this. I don't think it represents the view of the party.
However, they are the only party who had opposed the Iraq War from day 1 (which most people now see was a load of BS - and now we have a much more difficult ISIS to deal with).
They are also the only party who are opposing the $400M tax payer funded system of oppression they are building (metadata retention).
Pity we can't pick and choose the best bits from each and make up our own party.
However, they are the only party who had opposed the Iraq War from day 1 (which most people now see was a load of BS - and now we have a much more difficult ISIS to deal with).
They are also the only party who are opposing the $400M tax payer funded system of oppression they are building (metadata retention).
Pity we can't pick and choose the best bits from each and make up our own party.
We'll you know what they say about unqualified opinions and @rseholes, everyone's got one.
The idea that decisions about global warming should be made based on feelings and layman's opinions instead of science is of course ludicrous but this is the Internet I suppose so par for the course.
When Tim Flannery stated we would run out of water; what was his prediction or warning based on?
A feeling, a layman's opinion; with national airtime behind it? I don't think so. He was taken very seriously by many folks for a while. Maybe still is - which would be a sad indictment on everyone's intelligence to question our experts.
Now, remember; he was a very high profile "expert" on all these matters at the time, and enjoys loads and loads of air time - sorta like the GW movement's answer to Steve Keen...
If he (Tim) was basing his prediction/warning based on opinion then he is not better than I, of course. He is worse, because he has been proved to be wrong already.
The difference is that he said the world was ending, I am saying everyone should calm down.
Now; if what he was saying was based on science, then I and others are quite within our rights to haha the whole shebang.
If it was science, then how did they get it so spectacularly wrong - and so quick?
Just because it is my opinion (based on decades of observation) and just because it goes against what the current trend of thinking is; doesn't mean it is wrong.
You've already shown a few times times here on SS that your quoting of science and data is incorrect. Armchair stats expert.
We also know that a large number of data gathering sites relating to temp analysis have been cherry-picked, and that many scientists have been gagged on a range of these GW and CC issues for fear of losing their jobs...why would that be?
Just ask TopCropper.
The only concession I will make on this argument that if - and I say if - there is CC or GW; then it never has been as a result of anything we humans have done.
Given that; why are we even bothering to go on and on as a planet about how we should be taking action immediately, and all that guff.
Last edited:
Interesting read.
There is probably no doubt that humans are currently contributing to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and scientists are quite strong on the opinion that increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. What they can't agree on is to what extent this warming will occur. Will the warming be enough to cause problems for me? my children? or grandchildren? I don't know. But it is probably something I will continue to have an open mind about over the next few years/decades.
There is probably no doubt that humans are currently contributing to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and scientists are quite strong on the opinion that increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures. What they can't agree on is to what extent this warming will occur. Will the warming be enough to cause problems for me? my children? or grandchildren? I don't know. But it is probably something I will continue to have an open mind about over the next few years/decades.
OK, the graphic comes from The Guardian, which is renowned for it's left-wing politics. But NASA also supports this position. And Scientific American has an article discussing the research that arrived at that number. Lastly, Wikipedia, naturally, has an entry.
If you want to look at the subject from the pro angle, take a look at Skeptical Science.
Science is based around theories, and the process involves a healthy amount of debate. You'll probably never get everyone to have exactly the same view, and the 97% or so who support Climate Change will probably disagree over its magnitude.
97 % of climate scientists agree on global warming.
the same 97 % probably also agree on historical global cooling -perhaps ice ages.
so the statement per se, while possibly correct, really means what ?
Lack of such specificity would be frowned upon and marked down in a first year Uni science piece yet looks to be published as an authority view.
ta
rolf
the same 97 % probably also agree on historical global cooling -perhaps ice ages.
so the statement per se, while possibly correct, really means what ?
Lack of such specificity would be frowned upon and marked down in a first year Uni science piece yet looks to be published as an authority view.
ta
rolf
I agree with BayView on this 100%.
However I do not mind people holding an opposing view.
As I see it there are two groups, one group who are trying to fix climate change. In my opinion it is a futile excercise but one that will yield better understanding about the world we live in. The second group is trying to find an alternate planet where humans species can survive. Best of luck to both the groups.
My view on this predicament - having lived for 50 plus years -
In Aus, the opportunity to do well financially is there. It is everywhere.
Even for the poorest kids living in the poorest areas; the opportunity is there. It might be harder given their demographic and geographic circumstances, but it is still there.
I think of places like say; Donald out in the middle of Victoria; these types of towns are not progressing much - if at all.
So, a kid born in Donald will have a limited choice of school, and limited choice of job when he/she leaves school and so on. Easy to not do well if they choose.
But, they have the opportunity to learn basic money management and finances, to leave Donald and move to the Cities for a career, or to stay in such a town, manage their money wisely and arrive at 40 years of age in a pretty good financial position.
Despite this you can still come unstuck and lose it all, but to say folks will work hard and never get ahead and remain poor - the working poor - I don't agree with this.
It is all in our own hands and to choose the right decisions in life to get ahead.
From my experience, many (most) of the "working poor" are that way through their own choices in life.
Such decisions as leaving school early, working in a job, but spending everything they earn on cars, or grog, or cigarettes, or clothes, or night clubs, or travel...the list is endless where we can waste money, or find ways to impede our financial success.
Most of it is ignorance, but noone is stopping any of us from learning..especially in this current world of unlimited and instant knowledge to help us.
Much of the problem is laziness from an early age...laziness to try and find out about money management, or finances, or laziness in saving money, laziness to study, to do homework, to work in shiddy dead-end jobs to get some cash. It is far more fun and easier to spend money on stuff, and not work hard to earn another $100 each week for investing, etc..
The amount of folks I have met who are the "working poor" yet will not do overtime, or work weekends, or do the extra yard...They pi.zz me off, because they are often the first ones to cry about their lot.
Every day of my life I am surrounded by broke pensioners and broke tradies... all these folks have made choices...bad ones.
That's fine; just stop crying about how bad you've got it. Take yer badge off.
All it takes is for that person to not spend all their money; to save some for a shares parcel or a deposit on a property; spend less on the car and put some aside for investing, and they can become well off - it's not the level of income in the early years; it's what you do with it.
Of course; (and I am one of these folks, so I can talk with authority on the matter) they all say; "god; I wished I new about this stuff when I was in school!"
Or they blame their upbringing and so forth.
But they still have the choice and opportunity to change the pattern, to get off their @rse and learn about money management and apply it, and they can still win.
I found out at aged 40 about investing, and have bumbled and stuffed up all the way through until aged 53 and am doing ok. God I wished I knew what I now know at aged 14 when I started my first early morning paper round.
So; it is all in our own hands, and I won't entertain the "working poor" aspect - they can change it as soon as right now.
But most won't because it requires a massive change in their thinking and lifestyle choices, and a bit of extra effort..
Last edited:
Similar threads
